Film Viewing Due Date: 9/30
9/20/11
Film 40: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)
12 Angry Men Review
girl by locker says: I was very interested in watching this movie being that my fellow Cinema Cram partner took his writing name from the film. It was obviously one that was dear to him, and I was curious to see why that was. I was not disappointed though still not sure whether Juror #3 took his name because he relates to the Juror #3 character from the movie or whether he just likes his transformation. Hands down, without a doubt, this movie is 5 out of 5 stars on my Netflix ratings.
What was so good about the movie? First, I loved that it wasn't a typical court room drama. Meaning, the movie starts at the end of the trial and then moves into a single room in which the 12 men must determine that fate of a boy accused of killing his father. We only learn and hear the details of the case via the conversations that the men have. The one hold out juror who votes "not guilty" in the first round isn't necessarily interested in proving innocence or guilt, but rather focuses on the fact that they are about to sentence a man to death and that it deserves a conversation. He begins to explore the notion of "reasonable doubt." In the end, we do not know whether the boy is guilty or innocent, but there is enough reasonable doubt that no one feels confident sending him to his death.
The second aspect that I loved about this movie was the writing. I know the writing was solid because everything happened in a single room and I was riveted by the outcome. The writing helped build tension. But I don't just think it was the writing. I believe the visual aspect of the story helped create emotions in me though perhaps I didn't realize it at the time. I read that Sidney Lumet (the director) did a lot of work with the camera to help tell the story. In his book Making Movies he writes, "I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, shot the second third at eye level and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward the end the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie." In the film's last shot, he observes, he used a wide-angle lens "to let us finally breathe."
This movie is definitely a classic and one that all should see. The dialogue, the arguments, the varying personalities treat us to a phenomenal movie but also give us insight into the a man's right to trial and the right to be innocent until proven guilty.
Juror #3 says: And we finally get to my namesake. Yes, I, Juror #3, took my name from Lee J Cobb's character in the classic film 12 Angry Men. I've seen this movie a half dozen times and I never cease wonderment at the absolutely brilliant script. The movie begins with the end of a trial, and 12 jurors deliberate as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. One juror, played by Henry Fonda, is the lone holdout who just isn't quite convinced and wants simply to talk things over before making his decision. The audience uncovers the facts of the case through the ensuing debate where slowly but surely doubt creeps into the minds of the other jurors and provides a thrilling debate between 12 men holding the life of an 18-year-old boy in their hands. The acting is superb in Sidney Lumet's directorial debut. Again, the script is genius and the dialogue witty, cutting and crisp. There is only one real issue that I had with the movie which is the fact that a man is supposed to be judged BEYOND a reasonable doubt, something that the movie sort of ignores. Then again that would probably ruin the entire premise, and the writing is too good to worry about reality. If you have yet to see this film please consider it the next time you're looking for can't-miss entertainment. Not a surprise I'm sure but I rate 12 Angry Men 5/5 stars on netflix.
What was so good about the movie? First, I loved that it wasn't a typical court room drama. Meaning, the movie starts at the end of the trial and then moves into a single room in which the 12 men must determine that fate of a boy accused of killing his father. We only learn and hear the details of the case via the conversations that the men have. The one hold out juror who votes "not guilty" in the first round isn't necessarily interested in proving innocence or guilt, but rather focuses on the fact that they are about to sentence a man to death and that it deserves a conversation. He begins to explore the notion of "reasonable doubt." In the end, we do not know whether the boy is guilty or innocent, but there is enough reasonable doubt that no one feels confident sending him to his death.
The second aspect that I loved about this movie was the writing. I know the writing was solid because everything happened in a single room and I was riveted by the outcome. The writing helped build tension. But I don't just think it was the writing. I believe the visual aspect of the story helped create emotions in me though perhaps I didn't realize it at the time. I read that Sidney Lumet (the director) did a lot of work with the camera to help tell the story. In his book Making Movies he writes, "I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, shot the second third at eye level and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward the end the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie." In the film's last shot, he observes, he used a wide-angle lens "to let us finally breathe."
This movie is definitely a classic and one that all should see. The dialogue, the arguments, the varying personalities treat us to a phenomenal movie but also give us insight into the a man's right to trial and the right to be innocent until proven guilty.
Juror #3 says: And we finally get to my namesake. Yes, I, Juror #3, took my name from Lee J Cobb's character in the classic film 12 Angry Men. I've seen this movie a half dozen times and I never cease wonderment at the absolutely brilliant script. The movie begins with the end of a trial, and 12 jurors deliberate as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. One juror, played by Henry Fonda, is the lone holdout who just isn't quite convinced and wants simply to talk things over before making his decision. The audience uncovers the facts of the case through the ensuing debate where slowly but surely doubt creeps into the minds of the other jurors and provides a thrilling debate between 12 men holding the life of an 18-year-old boy in their hands. The acting is superb in Sidney Lumet's directorial debut. Again, the script is genius and the dialogue witty, cutting and crisp. There is only one real issue that I had with the movie which is the fact that a man is supposed to be judged BEYOND a reasonable doubt, something that the movie sort of ignores. Then again that would probably ruin the entire premise, and the writing is too good to worry about reality. If you have yet to see this film please consider it the next time you're looking for can't-miss entertainment. Not a surprise I'm sure but I rate 12 Angry Men 5/5 stars on netflix.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
